Manish Teckchandani Vs Angel Broking Ltd. and Ors.

1 -

IN	THE HIGH ORDINARY	COURT OF J ORIGINAL	UDICATURE AT CIVIL	BOMBAY JURISDICTION
	ARBITRATION	PETITION	NO.37 O	F 2002
Mr Manish Tec Angel Broking	kchandani v/s Ltd. and others		... Petitioner ... Respondents
Mr Shail	esh Shah with	Mr P.N.	Bunwani i/b	Mr T.N.
Tripathi		for		Petitioner.
Mr B.J.	Somandy i/b	M/s Sanjay	Udeshi and	Co. for
Respondents.
CORAM DATE	: :	23RD	D.K.DESHMUKH AUGUST	J. 2004

¶3

2 -

¶4

P.C.:

¶5

1.		By this petition, the petitioner challenges
the	award	made by the Sole Arbitrato	r	directing	the
petitioner	to	pay an amount of Rs.4,9	5,900/	- to	the
respondents.		So far as this award	is	concerned,	though
it is	challenged	by the petitioner, in	my	opinion	, there
is n	o sub	stance in the challenge because	if	one	goes
through	the	pleadings and evidence		in	arbitration
petition	No.325	of 2002, the petitioner	in	that	petition
proceeded	on	the basis that this amount	was	payable	by
the	petitioner	to the respondents and	the	refore,	there
was a	settle	ment deed between the p	arties.	I	n my
opinion,	therefore	, no exception can be	taken	to	the
award.	It	is further to be seen here	that	the	claim of
the	respondents	was based on the entries	in	the	ledger
maintained	by th	em of the account of th	e	petitioner.	On
the	basis of	the same entries, the pet	itioner	had	made
claim	before	the Arbitrators under the		National	Stock
Exchange	which	is the subject matter		of	arbitration

¶6

petition No.325 of 2002. Thus, in my opinion, there is

¶7

no substance in the challenge.

¶8

The learned counsel appearing for respondents

¶9

¶10

3 -

¶11

submitted	that	the	Arbitrator	s have	given	cogent		reasons
for rej	ecting	the	counter	claim	submitted		by	the
petitioner.		The	counter	claim	submitted	by		the
petitioner of the affidav	is it of Sh	to be yamlal Teckch	found andani dated	in paragraph 18th	5(b),	(c)	and	(d)
December 200	0. The	y read as unde	r :-

¶12

At the further outset,	I say	and	submit
that the Claimants	have	made	various
false statements with	a view	to	mislead
the Hon’ble Forum	and has	not a	pproached
with clean hands.	The	Claimants	have
suppressed various	ma	terial	facts,
documents, correspondence	etc.	which	are
relevant for deciding	the	issues	and
controversies between the parties. Som	e
of the relevant facts are as follows :-

¶13

(a) ....................

¶14

In t	he course of	such	trading, in	or
about	16th August	1999,	besides	other
shares,	the Respo	ndent	purchased	certain
shares	of Wipro Ltd.		and ITC	Badra
Chalam	on or about	17th	September	1999.
The	Respondent p	aid	entire co	nsideration

¶15

4 -

¶16

in	respect of the said	Wipro	shares	and
ITC	Badra Chalam	shares.		however,
despite	repeated reque	sts	and	reminders,
the	said Broker failed	and	neglected	to
give	delivery of the	said	shares	together
with	dividends and all		other	benefits
accrued	thereto. As	the	account	was
running,	the Respondent	and	his	group
were	relying upon the	said	brokers	who
were	assuring them to	give	delivery	of
pending	shares. I crave	lea	ve to	refer
to	and rely upon the	relev	ant bills	in

¶17

respect of purchase of said shares when produced.

¶18

However,	on	22nd February 2000,	the
father	of th	e Respondent, who was	looking
after	all	family accounts, attended	the
office	of	the Claimants and	requested
them	to	sell 50 shares of Wipro	Ltd.,
delivery	of	which was pending with	the
broker	since	August 1999. However,	to
the	utter	shock and surprise, the	said
broker	did	not allow the Respondent	to
sell	the	said shares at the price	then
prevailing	in	the market i.e.	about

¶19

5 -

¶20

Rs.9615/-			per	share.	The Resp	ondent	is
entitled		to	c	laim	Rs.4,80,750/-	being	the
price		of	the	said	50 shares at	the	rate
of		Rs.9	,615/-	tog	ether with int	erest	at
the ra	te		of	24	% per annum	from	22nd
February			2000.		The Respon	dent	was

¶21

selling the said share to settle the account of the Claimants.

¶22

(d)	Besides above, the said broker	illegally
	and wrongfully sold 1100 carried	forward
	shares of State Bank of India on	25th
	February 2000 at the rate of	Rs.240.78.
	The Respondent, for the first time,	came
	to know about the said illegal	and
	unauthorised sale of the said	carried
	forward shares at about 1.30 p.m.	on
	29th February 2000 when the price	of the
	said shares was Rs.261.78. The	appellant
	has caused loss and damage to	the
	Respondent at the rate of Rs.21/-	per
	share, amounting to Rs.23,100/-	on
	account of illegal and unauthorised	sale
	of said carried forward 1100 shares	of
	State Bank of India. Immediately,	after
	knowing the said illegal transaction	of

¶23

6 -

¶24

the carried forward	shares on	29th
February 2000, the Re	spondent	protested
the same, when the	broker agreed	to
compensate the Respondent	loss and	damage
suffered by him for	the sum	of
Rs.23,100/- on account	of said	illegal
transaction effected by	the	broker
without knowledge,	permission	or
information of the Respo	ndent.	Without
prejudice to above, t	he Claimants,	ought
not to have sold the	said carried	forward
shares of State Bank of	India on	25th
February 2000 to adjust	any account	of
BSE or NSE as there	was huge	credit
balance and deliveries	of various	shares
were pending with the	broker. I	crave
leave to refer to and	rely upon	the
relevant bills in respect	of said	Badala

¶25

transaction and quotation of 29th

¶26

February 2000."

¶27

. Perusal of this counter claim shows that each

¶28

of them relates on oral instructions given on behalf of the petitioner to the respondents. Admittedly, there is no oral evidence led on behalf of the petitioner. There is also no document on record which will establish such

¶29

7 -

¶30

oral	instructions.	In	my	op	inion,	there	fore,	thou	gh the
reasons	given	by the	Arbitr	ator i	n the	aw	ard	may	not be
capable	of	being	termed	as	cogent	rea	sons	for	rejecting
the	counter	claim,	I find	that	in	the	abse	nce of	oral
evidence,	it	was	not	possible	for	the		Arbitrato	r to
grant	the	counter	claim.	In	my	opinio	n,	no	exception
can	be	taken to	the	finding	of	the		Arbitrator	rejecting

¶31

the counter claim. In the result therefore, petition

¶32

fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

¶33

. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly

¶34

authenticated by the Associate / Personal Secretary as

¶35

true copy.

¶36

Certified copy expedited.

Manish Teckchandani v. Angel Broking Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manish Teckchandani v. Angel Broking Ltd. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ashok Layland Finance Ltd. Vs Mr. Omer M.Ansari and Anr.

Shantanu N.Desai Vs Dushyant @ Kishore Nanubhai Desai Ors.

Domnic Francis Pereira Vs Joseph Paul Pereia and Ors.

Manipal Stock and Share Brokers Ltd. Vs Prakash G.Patankar and Anr.

Kauntey Tanna Vs B. M. Gandhi Securities Pvt. Ltd. and Anr.

Satish Tandon Vs Indian Motion Picture Distributors Assn. and Ors.